More than 60 years of investigations - by multiple generations of Americans inside the government and out - and after all of that no credible/serious evidence of a conspiracy was found (no, the HSCA's conclusions of "probably" one doesn't meet my standard). How much more is needed? How many more investigations? Do we just dismiss all of those investigations. The ones done by the government and the media? The same media that exposed the CIA's crimes? They missed it? As Seymour Hersh said, the idea that the CIA was behind the assassination is absurd.
I guess Hersh and all of the subsequent investigations were part of coverups too? After all, as you said it's obvious there was a conspiracy. If it's obvious than the Warren Commission and FBI and HSCA and Church Committee and the NY Times and CBS and PBS and Seymour Hersh and Tim Weiner and on and on have been covering it up. That was Seymour Hersh, someone who knows something about how the CIA works.
Here we are and the conspiracy believers can't agree on anything other than there was a conspiracy. By the CIA. No it was the Mob. No it was LBJ. No it was anti-Castro Cubans. No it was the Birchers. No it was the Pentagon. No it was rich Texas oilmen. After all this time you folks can't agree on anything.
So who has been covering it all up all of these decades? Any original assassins are long dead. So you think a current generation of Americans, many of whom weren't even alive at the time, are covering it up? Even today? That makes no sense at all. Even more unlikely, as we know Democrats and Republicans hate each other like two sects in a religious war. The idea that they could get together to cover this up is...well, sorry, it's not believable.
I understand your scepticism, and I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your argument. However, dismissing the possibility of a conspiracy because multiple investigations haven't "officially" proven one overlooks some key points.
First, the number of suspicious deaths related to the assassination is statistically staggering. Several researchers have calculated that the probability of so many key witnesses dying unnaturally—many by murder, accident, or suicide—is astronomically low if this were all mere coincidence. If there was no conspiracy, how do we explain that? What are the odds that so many individuals connected to a single historical event would meet untimely and suspicious deaths?
Second, the idea that the media and government “would have exposed it by now” assumes that every institution operates with complete transparency and without bias or political pressure. The same media that has exposed scandals has also ignored or downplayed others when it was inconvenient or dangerous to pursue. The FBI, CIA, and other intelligence agencies have a long history of obfuscation, as even declassified documents now confirm.
Lastly, regarding the disagreement over who was behind it—yes, there are different theories about who orchestrated the assassination, but that doesn’t invalidate the likelihood of a conspiracy. When a murder occurs in a criminal case, investigators may not immediately agree on who pulled the trigger, but that doesn’t mean no murder took place. The simple fact that there are multiple competing theories doesn't negate the substantial evidence that at least some conspiracy likely existed.
I’d genuinely be interested in how you personally explain the statistical anomalies surrounding the deaths of witnesses, the obstruction of evidence, and the inconsistencies in official reports. If it weren't a conspiracy, then what alternative explanation do you find most plausible?
